I'm Tony Dean, and today we'll be calling history to speak with Samuel Adams. He'll be answering our call in 1801. His cousin John Adams has recently been defeated by Thomas Jefferson, who has just taken office as the third president of the United States. Samuel Adams has always been a confusing figure in history for me. Clearly, he was one of the most important Founding Fathers, responsible for stoking the fire of rebellion whenever the flames would become tired embers.
When the British were on their way to Concord, looking for the primary troublemakers, they were looking for John Hancock and Samuel Adams. When we talk about the Boston Tea Party, or the Sons of Liberty, Samuel Adams was always involved. Under rabble rouser, in the dictionary, there's probably a picture of Sam Adams. And yet, he was never president. We also don't see his likeness on our coins, or our dollars.
It's not that he was lost to history, but it also doesn't appear that he was at the forefront of anything. And And that's because, Sam Adams is a humble man. And he did the work without the need for recognition or monetary gain. He worked behind the scenes with a very simple goal of waking up each day to improve the lives of the people in his community. And I don't mean just saying he was gonna do it, I mean believing it with all of his heart.
Sam's deep religious beliefs were rooted strongly in the golden rule of do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This was not some rough and tumble scrapper that would get into bar fights every night. He was not a rabble rouser that would stir things up just for the sake of raising another's ire.
Sam Adams was an educated man, a Harvard graduate, a man who believed in the importance of education for all and dedicated his life to the service of the people through his strong belief in God, liberty, and justice. Prior to this conversation, I don't think I knew Sam Adams at all, but I know him now. Ladies and gentlemen, fellow undrinkable beer everywhere, I give you Samuel Adams! Sir, it is a pleasure to speak with you today.
My name is Tony Dean, and I'm talking to you from the future, in the 21st century. The device that you're holding in your hand is called a smartphone, and it allows us to speak as if you and I were sitting across from one another at the Green Dragon having a drink. And it also allows me to share a record of our conversation with people around the world in our time. I was hoping that I could ask you some questions today, but before I do, I understand this is a strange introduction.
I Are there any questions that I could answer for you first? There's so many questions, especially with interacting with someone to the future, as you're describing, and the device is quite strange, but having been in the Association of Science here I can accept that things will become very interesting as the future comes upon itself. Oh, I promise you, the future, if you were to see this, you'd be overwhelmed, especially if you're interested in science. What is the association of science?
I don't know what that It was with philosophy and science. The United States brought that into being in the about the middle of the 1700s, and I was made from the philosophy side as well as from being interested in science and education. of that association. Interesting. So, you say you were on the philosophy side of it, you were definitely not short of philosophies on everything, it appears.
But would be an example of something that they would do Well, the interest was in a political philosophy in particular.
So as you may know, Dr. Franklin my cousin and others we were known for having the political impact, but even in those early days in that mid 1700s to late 1700s there were people that were carrying over similar philosophical issues or societies as were in the mother country, as it was during that period, and was established likewise here at the colonies at that time, what's now these United States. Yeah. So you you mentioned Dr. Franklin. Did you have close relationship with Dr. Franklin?
We had a number of interactions over the years, and as you can imagine, we definitely enjoyed the same common interest in liberty as the opportunity have known many of the same people, and interestingly enough as you may know as well, Dr. Franklin, back in the 1750 period of time, was very interested in seeing this nation become independent. Especially after what happened during the French and Indian War.
I I think that nobody, especially in our time would say that Dr. Franklin was anything other than just absolutely brilliant in every way. I mean, there are few polymaths that, , have accomplished as much as he has, no matter how many interests they have. So where does your cousin. Compare to him. Is Franklin more intelligent than your cousin, John Adams? I would say that he is more rounded than my cousin John.
My cousin John was very focused and he still is, as you well know, especially with some of the issues that occurred during his presidency and that being so focused and led in the manners that he did. Has been that it created problems for our nation to the point that now with Mr. Jefferson being president, we're seeing a revived perspective on what is true federalism and once again, a republic. So you're happy with Jefferson? Oh, absolutely.
Absolutely. Jefferson and I became friends early on during the Continental Convention. He being much, much younger than myself. And his brilliance was very impressive. As we look back and see what he was able to do with the Declaration of Independence just a few years before that, I had written the Declaration of Rights as an Englishman, and to see the parallels of that brought into the true format that is still, this day, our substantial document of liberty is just beyond all things.
And I just appreciate what he's done to make what is going on with our liberty movement, again, most impressive. And the person who was president before him was your cousin, correct? And so far, who's the better president? Well, Jefferson, as we are here in 1801, has just gotten into office. So I believe that Jefferson is going to outshine my cousin by virtue of how he is going to deal with the various policies with France, how he's going to take and look at what happened with the Jay Treaty.
That occurred during that Washington presidency, and then was implemented with my cousin, and he's going to bring back, in my opinion, the liberties that were pretty much moved to the side under my cousin John, especially as he was looking at the Alien and Sedition Act that really was focused not just on aliens, but also was affecting the citizenry.
You know, it's interesting, but I've had a lot of these conversations, I've even spoken with your cousin, and people always wish that I would have asked more about this, so what was wrong with that, or what was right about that in your opinion? What was right, I think, was some of the basic intent to make sure that aliens were not affecting our interests. They were not going to affect our elections. They weren't going to affect our commerce.
The sedition side was where I had the greater degree of grief. And with that is where if someone would say something against My cousin, even, if someone would say something against the government, be they a officer of state government or a merchant or even a religious person, they could have been brought up on charges of sedition.
And that is not how , our liberties under that declaration, first and foremost, was And then secondly, when this Constitution came into effect, the idea that we would have those rights, and as you well know, the fight for the First Amendment, and those, what are now the Bill of Rights, And that First Amendment, to give us that freedom of speech, to have that curbed, to me, was just insidious, and some of the worst actions that could have been brought into legislation.
And that's exactly what it did, it took that very first right and said, , this is kind of a flexible thing. , if we like what people are saying, then we're okay with it. And if we don't, then we're going to do something bad to them. And that seems like that flies in the face of everything that we fought for in the revolution. I most agree, and I pray that, as you said, you're from the future, that in your time frame, that has become settled, that First Amendment is the first in solid workings.
of our liberties and is not infringed upon in any way. I hope the wisdom of the people of the future and the faith and morality and virtue of the people in the future will hold so true and dear that is something that is not infringed upon again. You will be glad to know that the right to free speech is protected in this time dearly, but I'll be quite honest with you. And this is maybe even a hard thing for me to say, cause I believe in that, right?
There's a possibility that we've actually gone. Too far, because, , there's a lot of people that know what they're talking about, but then there are a lot of other people that just like to make other people angry, or, , just like to stir the pot for no reason other than , just because maybe they're unhappy themselves. And the ability for people to get the word out very quickly now is greater than it's ever been, and , some of those people do serious damage because , they care about themselves.
They don't really care about the Republic or other people. And I don't know, do you think like something like that could go too far? once again, even As my cousin John or Madison had said in relationship to the Constitution and the amendments, and this one in particular, is that this Constitution is only for a moral and virtuous people, a moral and religious people.
So that was a framework, even though my cousin became a Unitarian and his theology started to shift drastically, as well as that happened with Madison, They clearly understood that we had to maintain that, and their expectation was that would continue within the concept of the churches, so that we would have that type of citizenry.
But as you well know, all through time, the citizens have those decisions and make those moral decisions, and Even as it was coming into period of election, how vehemently nasty it was of an election period and how the bickering was going on in our press of the day. So can there be an overstep, there always can.
Hopefully greater minds will take and hold true to those fundamentals of what does it mean to self govern and then be able to continue with solid good governance under the guiding hand of the constitution. it sounds like you're optimistic. about Jefferson. And I guess, I think I know the answer to this question. So, , what do you think the current state right now of the Republic is as far as standing true to, , our original revolutionary principles that, that we fought for?
, where do you think we are right now? I think we're in disarray and the hope is, and I think if you go and you look at Jefferson's inaugural speech and in a letter that he wrote to me as well. And my reply to him is that there will be a unity, a reunification of the people in their thinking In looking at how the republic should function and to work through those issues that were causing separations from my cousin John's quite frankly from his presidency and administration.
So I have great hope. As you said, I look forward to seeing what Mr. Jefferson is going to be able to accomplish and bringing that unity together and working through a number of those issues that happened at the end of Washington's presidency and then through my cousins When I think of President John Adams and the fact that he served one term and then lost to Jefferson, when I think of his job, I think of an impossible job.
, becoming president after Washington, who many people loved Washington, maybe, probably you'd say most, I just think that his job was impossible. , I'm wondering if maybe he did as well as somebody could have done, or do you think he just did a poor job? , what are your thoughts on that? as with it. Anyone that is, comes to office, I think with the, as you said, with General President Washington, his was because of his natural leadership.
He also had some good people around him and that is what always will take and drive what happens in the administration. The one person As you noted, can only do so much.
The rest of it is so impossible as we look at the size of our nation and looking at the potentials of how do we expand our commerce, how do we deal with what is going on in Europe as far as the French and the revolution that they're having still the problems that we're having with the British and our trade and so on and so forth. That is extremely difficult.
And I do have to say, I agree with you in that regard, but because of the council around him, some of his decisions were not the best, especially those that led to the Alien and Sedition Act, which I think is the very dark mark on his presidency. . When you've mentioned George Washington a couple times, President Washington, General Washington.
The first time you said it, I was listening to your voice and I thought I heard you say like General Washington, almost like you had something to say about him that wasn't necessarily positive. I'm curious how you feel about Washington. Well, , I was one of the first to nominate him as general of the revolutionary forces, but where I had to take a side draw. And if you heard that in my voice was as he went forward with the J treaty myself, I did not feel that we were really.
moving in the right direction with that treaty. I think that we gave too much up to the British. We did not secure enough on making sure in particular that our ships were not boarded and our seamen were not taken by the British. And then entrusted into their care, I guess is what they would say. But it impacted us severely just in that trade alone.
And although I disagreed with the bloody terror that was happening in France, the idea of the French Revolution and being able to trade better with them as , a country, a nation, and people trying to become a republic versus what we saw with, , an established kingdom and all of the old style of government in Great Britain. That was really what my problem was with Washington taking J. Blanketly when I thought that we could take and negotiate a little bit stronger in those critical areas.
When you say kingdom and, as far as your feelings about the monarchies and like this absolute power and people not having freedom. . I wonder what your reaction would have been. if Washington had not given up his presidency? What if Washington had stood up and everybody loved him and he said, you know what, I'm just going to hang around here till I die. And, you know, I don't know, maybe I'll adopt a son and teach him how to be president.
I mean, if he had not, , handed the reins to somebody else, would you have had a reaction if he would have stayed president? Oh, absolutely He would been the first violator of that which he led very strongly during the convention of 87 Everything about him at that time would have been against every first principle that he had. And in that case, then the nation would have the right to reject him and reject that form of government.
It , could have become a travesty for where we came together as a nation. It could have been a travesty. That was a big move for him to step down, wasn't it? Not really, I think he was tired. And you may know that I resigned shortly, as the governor of Massachusetts, shortly after he did. I think that both of us came to an independent decision that we've run our course in governing, leading people. Being willing to exercise all that we have for the liberty of this nation.
And it was time for younger people to actually become engaged and observe and be there available for them as they would need used in your time? That sounds like a yes. I, Sir, I've been called that in war. Okay, well that's what I was going to ask you. So here you are mentioning that you were the governor of Massachusetts. And yet, prior to that, you were the guy disrupting the government. And I'm wondering, which of these you like more? Thanks for watching! Bye! A stable government for sure.
One that is based on the principles of republicanism and federalism and one that then, as I mentioned, is the people's government. It's all about we the people being able to self govern and then be able to come together in a society and choose those who will participate in governing with us. That's my preference. Always to be as governor. I always maintain that humble position that it was not about myself.
It was not about holding a office of power, but how to best serve the people and to execute that which the legislature would put before me in the most expedient manner, and in a manner that followed through with what the state constitution expected us to do. , that is one of the things about your history as we read about it in our time that I find most fascinating.
It seems like everybody says what you said, you know, they make that humble statement that it's not about me and it's about the people. And, , then they go out and make as much money as they can and try to get all kinds of fame and recognition. But I don't see that from you anywhere. Everything that you said, I feel like that is the absolute, , God spoken truth that, , you really don't care maybe even about either making money or having it or about fame.
That it seems that you're spending all of your, , mental horsepower or whatever energy you have or had to make the people around you the people of your nation. to make their situation better and without any care of recognition for yourself. And is that, am I right on track with You are. You are. Most definitely. It It goes to what I believe the first principles from the Reformation are, and what that biblical truth is. I've always said that the true sovereign is Almighty God.
And that is where I've always lived my life, is based on understanding who has authority. The full sovereignty and to be an agent of that sovereignty and to do that in a way that follows within those biblical principles of truth, honesty, and maintaining the rights of those other individuals that also have , those God given rights in which that is the form and purpose of government is to ensure that those rights are protected. As you well know, that.
is the truest, simplest perspective when we look at What is the right of property and what is the rights of a person? They're not given to us by any laws or government. They're naturally given to us by God. We look at that just from what natural law and natural revelation and I take that to heart and that is the way I live my life.
I never did, I was never good at business as you may obviously you say you've Have some history of myself and in that, you know, that I was not good at businesses at all, and in fact, I was fired from the first job I ever had because I couldn't keep my interest there. So making money was not as important as making sure that people were guaranteed in their freedoms and their liberties. I want to come back and talk about business.
I have something specifically to ask you about that because it definitely does seem that business was not going to be your area of expertise. But you had mentioned reformation a couple of times. And for anybody that would not exactly know what you were talking about , explain , what that means. When I look at the Reformation is what began to happen and probably the most well known is the time of Martin Luther and that separation from Catholicism into Protestantism, the protesters of Catholicism.
The Reformation was that whole reforming of an idea, not just of religion, but the true or what I call the true application of those biblical principles, the truth of God. And how did that start moving into not only individual worship, but what did that start meaning in culture? And what did it start to mean for governing? We can look at numerous examples of what that is and how that then played into even the, those early settlers coming over the Puritans coming over.
And that's a heritage that I have and that I carried through not only in What I did in government what I tried to do in every aspect of my life. And that's the foundations of what we looked at during those early years of this nation being built. So back into the 1600s.
And so we can take that period and look at, for instance, one of the authors that I read and considered very strongly when I was looking at what is federalism and what is a republican form of government was Johannes Althussius and there we're looking at 1614 when he was doing some of his great writings and being able to digest that as well as others that wrote early times in even in England and what happened to set up the difference of just the absolute monarchy to bring
a Parliamentary government into play. It was all part of what happened from people looking at what do we reform? Not just in religious ideas, but true Living out their biblical concept and then what does that mean and how do we govern? It's interesting to me how. All of this, these religious beliefs that you so strongly hold are tied so directly to government. It almost seems like they are one in the same. Is that correct?
In my mind they are, and they should be, , there were times, and we see even now, the, how that is becoming somewhat separate, as I mentioned, what we looked at early on was that from the 1600s until today. So, Probably right after I graduated from Harvard, we saw that was a unifying mindset, especially in Massachusetts, not so much down in the southern colonies, especially in Virginia.
And it depended on the denominational settings of the various people, those that had more of a Presbyterian concept in government, because that's a church government, it's not a denomination per se, but it's a form of church government, versus an Anglican form of government. in the church was more aligned with a monarchical perspective, whereas a Presbyterian or the Puritans or Congregationalists were more liberty minded towards the people.
So are the two tied together even in the functions of church government? I believe that to be true. Okay. So as we're now just starting this conversation, I have to be honest with you. This is completely going a different direction than I would have guessed. . I guess I didn't realize how. religious of a person you are and how strong your beliefs are. And yet when you look at the the revolution , your role in that is as great as anybody's. I mean, there's a lot of death.
There's a lot of killing. There's a lot of suffering that happened as a result of that. How do you reconcile with that? Knowing that although you're working towards something better, there's, , thousands. Tens of thousands, maybe a hundred thousand people. I don't know how many that had to suffer because of the change that you were trying to incite. But through the ages, as you well know, there have been many, even religious wars.
, if you go back to the mother country of the early settling, excuse my age here, I think it was about 1680 or so, was the Glorious Revolution and that was Protestant against Catholic at the time there in England itself. Cromwell and his troops and what they were doing and how that came about. The idea of trying to establish the liberty will always have times when people go beyond Any form of common negotiation.
And at some points in time, when that tyranny becomes so aggressive that it does call us to take action, we don't want to take as you may know, when I left Reverend Clark's house, when the British were coming to arrest myself and Mr. Hancock, that as we were in the woods and heard those first shots in Lexington, I did raise my hands to heaven and say, It has begun, glory to God.
And, It is because of tyranny that at points in time, and we can go back to what happened during an earlier period with the city of Magdeburg in Germany at that time when the Holy Roman Emperor was going against one city to squash, and destroy Protestantism all at one time, and that city leaders stood up against that emperor and Was there bloodshed?
Unfortunately, yes, and because of man's personal sins and the way that we treat other human beings, it is a travesty that we have to shed blood, but at times it is necessary so that liberty prevails, not just for oneself, but for others, and so to reconcile that It was an unfortunate necessity that we saw the hearts of the people understanding liberty should prevail and tyranny be put aside.
And when tyranny takes and comes against those that want their liberty, There will, unfortunately, be times of bloodshed. Speaking of tyranny, if you had been alive during the time when Rome was growing, I don't think that you would have been a good friend of the Roman leaders. Most likely not. And again, if you go to that very early period, or if you go to the first century period, as we look at it, most certainly not.
Because, as I mentioned earlier, I would have to fall into the category of knowing who the sovereign of the universe is. So, would not bow a knee. And It's very interesting and how many people get that perspective confused as to Christians going to the jaws of the lions and tigers that was resistance to tyranny. And those martyrs were in fact those that were resisting a tyrannical and despotic government. So , what are you thinking happens next with America?
I mean, I know you're hopeful that we figure this out, but. , what is your hope been for America in these early years of, , having our first few presidents? Well my hope is that we're able to exercise the constitution in a manner that it does not become perverted and that we're able to contain It and keep those chains on it. As Mr Hamilton said on chains on government and not see government become excessive. That is my hope.
My hope is that when we look at how do we finance the federal government? That it maintains itself within the scope of those first article and maintaining that the tariffs and excise and would be the better method of being able to keep the activities flowing and working and be sufficient funding to keep a small government active. My hope is that federalism will be able to work and that we'll be able to maintain the types of open trade between the states that led us to that convention in 87.
When we looked at the arguments from the Maryland convention early on, that was one of the largest complaints was the inequality of trade between the various states or some of the other points of interest and legal arguments that were coming as one person was trying to make a argument or a case with another over business dealings or other personal property dealings.
And so hopefully, We're able to maintain that the federalism working and that a representative government will continue to be small and have those specific interests in what does it mean to treaty properly and not become excessive in treaties. That was one of my reasons with the Jay treaty, the problem that I had, was this going to become excessive? Because as you know, a treaty becomes. Part of the law of the land, not the constitution, but the law of the land. And we have to honor it.
And then how was that funded that as you well know, that treaty almost did not succeed because the initial Congress was not going to fund the mechanisms, especially for the trade aspect of that treaty to function. So a treaty can be negotiated from the administration's perspective. The It can be acknowledged within the context of the Senate, but then can it be operational based on will the house take and appropriate the proper funding.
So to keep our government small and to keep it functionally operational within the context of the constitution is my greatest hope and that's why I'm looking forward to what Mr. Jefferson, God willing, will let me see more of his presidency. You had mentioned a little bit ago that you were not great at business.
And in fact and I don't know if this was just a skill that you never developed, or if you just didn't care about making money and, , maybe you would have been a maybe even a better preacher if you weren't going to be what I suppose the English would have considered a revolutionary, in your early days, but it appears that. Because revolution was your thing, or searching for freedom was your thing, it appears that the first 40 years of your life you didn't really accomplish that much.
Is that how you feel about it? If you look at what is accomplishment, and you put that price tag on it, or you look at it from a business perspective and accumulating wealth, I was not very successful at that agreeably. And, in that, I think that you touched on two points that were very interesting, is that in my youth, that my parents, when they enrolled me at Harvard, they wanted me to be a preacher. So you're very astute in recognizing that.
And in that, study of theology, and as I mentioned already, about the Reformation, and then studying law that was associated to that, especially with Althusias and what he looked at in law and the Roman law and law of the nations, that changed my heart to go after and look more as to What is the liberty?
And going with my father to the shipyards and listening to the men talk about what was happening at the time and what happened during the French and Indian War and how we were even turned upon by the monarchy and by parliament in particular that led us into egregious taxation but getting off the ship. the direction that you were asking about. So yes, you're right.
I did take and focus on what did it mean to take and participate in good government and making sure that we had that capacity to govern ourselves. in a manner that we were by charter already doing in so many different ways of having a free form of government. And we were seeing that chipped away over the years. So that became my impetus of going into government more was to make sure that we can maintain the freedoms that we had under our charters.
But if we couldn't do it, in relationship with the mother country, then we needed to be independent, which then brings me to my master's thesis in which I did take and write. And again, here's where I'll paraphrase is that it was, if this government could not be swayed Then when is it time to rebel against it? That was the topic. Wow. And that was given before the governor that was of Massachusetts that was given before the judges, the legislature. And so.
From that point, that was my heart and understanding to when would be the right time when we see such tyranny and despotism coming upon us. Before you became public enemy number one, two, or three, or whatever number you were, to the king was there ever a time where you were called on by them or you sailed across the ocean and met with him and or had direct communication with him about what was happening. Never direct communication. Because I was part of the legislature.
I was elected to represent my area in Boston , so I. Obviously then had a lot of interaction with the governor and the lieutenant governor and Through them being the agents to the king the various communications But never any personal interaction. When it came time for the American colonists to figure out that they needed to unite and they needed a voice to stand up before the English would impose more Stamp Acts, more Sugar Acts, , more Townsend Acts.
And things would just get worse as far as freedom and liberty. Imagine a scenario that the king and the monarchy would have looked at that situation and said, you know, that is, that's a big fight over there. First of all, they're a million miles away. I got to sail so far just to even go over there and fight. Like we're never going to win that battle. Here's what we're going to do. We're going to back off.
We're going to let them have their freedom , we're going to negotiate something that is fair to them where they can vote and make their own laws. And, you know, we'll just have a, maybe get a small amount from them that they can live with. And basically they come to, they'd come to some sort of settlement that was agreeable to you. and agreeable to the colonists, where there was no reason to rebel and we would just all stay English.
If that had happened, which was never going to happen, we both know that, but if it was going to happen, what would you have done? I would have supported it I actually did that early on as well. And when we met in the first Congress, and at that time, the intentions were to try and reconcile with the mother country. And I said, fine, let's try and reconcile with the mother country. Knowing, as you already pointed out, that was not going to work.
And the Points of interest and a lot of, that drove us in the directions that we were driven in were not necessarily by the king. We, brought up the charges as were drafted in the declaration by Mr. Jefferson, specific to the king, because as you recall, we were given charters for governing. Massachusetts had some of the most lenient charters in self government. So we had those rights to elect our own representatives here in Massachusetts, not anyone that went to parliament.
So the real problem became what parliament was doing in conjunction with. the East India Trading Company and we saw our manufacturing being shut down. As you well know, we had to send our raw materials to England to have it manufactured there and then with a duty sent back to us to purchase That's crazy. we were manufacturing here all alone in Braintree where my cousin John lived. I don't know if he mentioned that to you or not, but we had an iron work.
In Braintree, and that was shut down so we could no longer make our own implements for farming, for protection, for any other types of use, even for building the ships in Boston Harbor. That was part of it. It was not just what people gather, or could have gathered by what was in the media, but it was very, and I do mean the media there, which we had as newspapers, And letters and pamphlets. What was happening was that they were actually destroying our local commerce, our banking.
One of the early days, as you may recall, is with my father who started a bank called a land bank where people would put into trust properties. And be able then to take loans out against that. Parliament came in and shut that down. And that's what drove my father into bankruptcy. So many issues of that nature were the economic issues that were forcing the people to look at how can we better self govern completely without the impact of parliament or.
Those people that had great influence to Parliament, such as the Dutch Indian Trading Company. It just sounds absolutely absurd that you make these goods and then you put them on a ship and send them all the way across the ocean and then wait until they make you some nails and then send the nails back so you can pound them into the whole of the ship or I don't know how to make ships. I don't know if you put nails in ships but it just sounds crazy. Like, even if it wasn't.
It just sounds insane That's what we thought. Thank God somebody said something, huh? so that, caused people to say, what is going on? How can this happen? And then to try and put pressure on the Governor to try and ask and go back to Parliament. And, but. , take it back just for another instant with the French and Indian War, for instance.
Now, my father was involved in that from the point of making sure that the troops, which, as you may know, the Massachusetts colony encompassed a greater area than it does now as a state. It encompassed most of all of New England. We provided the majority of the troops to go and fight into Canada. all the way to Nova Scotia. And we provided the troops, we provided the funding, we provided the clothing, , we were the provisioners.
But yet, because of that seven year war on the continent, after it was all finished, that's when Parliament came back and says, You didn't pay your fair share. You did not make sure that the coffers of England were full and now the debt that we have is a war debt. You need to pay for that. Well now that's interesting cuz I just talked with Thomas Gage here Just recently and Thomas Gage told me the exact opposite story what he said Of course!
he's you're telling me that he's the colonists put up everything to fight that, including the men and funding, and he's saying that the English were putting up the men and the funding and that, , supporting what the colonists were doing. But you're saying that's not true at No, that's not true.
There was some, obviously in the Canada area where some of the British troops came in, but the majority of the British troops men that went to fight and the supplies that came to them were from the colonies and were from a greater proportion of it to Massachusetts is where it came from. We can take you back to my father's ledgers if you'd like. I have a feeling you're going to be right. And so I'm not going to make you do that, but it is very interesting to hear the other side of that.
Because , we have a tendency to kind of believe our own stories sometimes. Or the stories that are told to us. And remember, General Gage really appreciated all of my enthusiasms, as they were for Liberty. Oh, he loved you. Yeah. I think your name came up when we were talking. He had nothing but kind words to say. You're the first one being invited to dinner. When they're having Yes. Yes. What are your, have you, did you have any meetings with him? Slight.
In correspondence, and then as he was in Boston just on a general side of things, but nothing that would be of any usefulness to try and negotiate some types of settlements. . When I had asked you I'd asked you that long question about, , if they conceded and they acquiesced and said, hey, , yeah we're gonna treat you guys better and give you liberty and freedom. And I said, what would you do? If there was nothing to rebel against, you had said, , I would support that.
But what I actually meant was, and although I appreciate your answer, what I actually meant was, what would you do for a living? Would you be selling lumber? Would you start making shoes? What would you have done? In that case, I would have, if they continued in giving us the liberties of self governance to the extent that we had already had, For most instances, I would have stayed in the local legislature , if I was elected to do that.
Otherwise, my great interest has always been in education and ensuring that young people were educated, boys and girls equally, and that would have been an area of interest for me. , since my retirement from politics, that's what I became very involved with as time went a lot, is to take and visit the schools, participate, help students as I could, tutor, and ensure that there was a good educational schools within Boston and Massachusetts in particular.
That came You know, I'm so glad that there are people that wake up in the morning that first think, what can I do for other people? Because your reputation is about stirring up mobs and being a rabble rouser. And I'd love to hear those other names that people call you. And, but the reality is you wake up in the morning and if there's nobody to fight, you're like, well, maybe we can make sure that more people are educated so that they can do better for themselves.
And if we don't have to create some sort of rebellion, maybe we can work for the government and do something to take what is exists right now and make that better. I mean, I'm so glad that there are people like you that are willing to do that. And I applaud you for that. And I'd like to go back for a minute and I'm sure you've probably had this discussion with people before and maybe not, but let's talk about the moment, the destruction of the T moment.
Tell me a little bit about how that came about. Because of the Refusal , of the governor in particular to not allow the tea to land. It was not an issue of the cost of the tea or even the tax. The tax was insignificant. It was the general principle of government forcing upon us that which we could not freely trade. Once again, it was the East India Trading Company that we had to buy the tea from.
Whereas prior to that action, just a few years prior, we were able to buy tea independent, and we were trading independent to be able to acquire our tea at the best price. But, the East India Trading Company accumulated so much tea in their warehouses because we were free trading with other nations directly that they went to Parliament and said , they wanted to have that sole right of trade. So, the tax that was put on, it was more of free trade issue.
And then how did it come about in particular? It was because the Sons of Liberty, which were not just a group of people in the Massachusetts colonies or New England colonies, but there were others in New York, there were those in Pennsylvania, and even into Virginia. This was a unified group of patriots that said enough was enough. And I had met with the governor earlier in the day.
Before that meeting actually was in correspondence with the Sons of Liberty working through a concept and a plan of if the governor would not acquiesce and ensure that T did not come ashore because then we would be responsible for the tax as well as then being there forced upon us from a sole provider. It was. determined what would be a signal. What would we do? So then it was that I would meet with the governor and ask him to make sure that T would not land.
And with his refusal, that's when I left and went out and gave basically, again, I'll paraphrase because of my age, it's hard to remember some of my exact words at that time, that There's nothing more we can do that it's time to move on because there's nothing more we can do. And that was the signal for those of the Sons of Liberty then to go forward with the plan of removing the T before it landed and putting it into the harbor.
So putting it into the Harbor was not only an act of defiance that, Hey, we're not going to tolerate this. It, I guess I hadn't really thought about this. It was actually an attempt, a successful attempt to prevent it from going the other 10 feet where it would land. And you'd have to pay a tax. That's interesting. I'd never really thought of it about it that way. Their tea, by the way, when you say you could get. Tea for better prices elsewhere.
The tea from the East India company was probably terrible. Wasn't it? After having been in storage for quite a while, , what was really interesting, the great support there was against that act. was even the young ladies refused to drink tea it was a social gathering environment so the women and young girls participated in standing against that particular text. . So what about the sons of Liberty? Tell me about that. You, did you start the sons of Liberty? Not actually.
That was a group that was forming as of their own. There were other patriots within the colony, and as I mentioned, in other locations as well, that determined that we needed to take a position on the different points of tyranny or despotism that were coming at us. And how would we do that? How would we communicate with one another? How would we take and ensure that we had a capacity to go beyond just that local environment?
So the Sons of Liberty were those that formed naturally, By people who were interested in truth and in the nation and in making sure that liberty would prevail. So I cannot take any personal credit for that. Is this one of those moments where you are just being humble because that's who you actually are and you really were the force behind starting this? Because I have a hard time believing that things like this just get started and then it works. Like somebody's got to light the match.
Did you not play a bigger role in that? If I would say there was the kindling put to the fire, I would have to go back even further to when my father was alive, and the men would gather, in the taverns and they became what was known as the caulkers club. The caulkers club being those in relationship to all that work on the wharf where they would put the caulking into the ships. And that became, I would say, that first of what would later become the Sons of Liberty.
Because at that point in time, the Caucus Club were those that were looking at how they could impact what was going on in our local government. How could they raise up that next generation of leaders to participate, or who could become elected, or how do we make sure that there were people That would go forward, not only in local government, but would go further in colonial government and at some point in time have the level of correspondence throughout the various colonies.
So I would have to say that was already in bloodstream. of the Patriots throughout the Massachusetts colony and how that would have spilled over into the other colonies. I think it was just by virtue of the various correspondence. So I would take and say that would have been the real beginning of the Sons of Liberty, who then took on that new name and were more active and willing to take and become, at times, More aggressive with those that were trying to push the insults of despotism upon us.
. So it might be more accurate to say that you took something that already existed and shaped it gave it some direction. Is that more accurate? I would concur with that. . So let's go back to the the destruction of the tea for a minute. John Hancock. I spoke with John Hancock and I was very surprised that he openly admitted that he was very involved in this.
And he said something along the lines of he was happy to supply those Indians with tomahawks But, you and him, were you the two that were most a part of spurring that into action? I would agree. Yes, Mr. Hancock, he had the financial capacity to be able to do exactly what he said to provide whether it was the headdresses or clothing or all that would be required for such an action and as well , he provided ships for other activity as well. So, his family and himself were.
Involved in , what would that be called where they would sail their ships around the blockades and make sure that goods got to support the patriots. But yes, I would agree with that. Yes, I know exactly what that word is. It's smuggling. Hancock was a smuggler, but you know what he also was?
He was the funding behind Samuel Adams, so that this man who cared nothing about recognition or personal wealth could continue to move the revolution forward, so that one day the people of his nation would have the freedom and the liberty that they deserved. In the next episode, we'll talk about Sam's role in government after independence, the myth about him making beer and how close he was to becoming president. Hint, it wasn't first, second, third, or fourth in line.
I'm glad you're enjoying this podcast, and if you haven't yet, subscribe now, and we'll see you at the next episode of the Calling History podcast with part two of Samuel Adams.